(http://i.imgur.com/TLOhONW.png) | (http://i.imgur.com/zI72XwN.png) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
On first blush, it seems just a teensy bit weak. Maybe make it 2/5 or 2/6? Here's my logic: For 2 :fire, I can play a minor phoenix that does 4 damage each round and has an in-element special ability (if you consider ash and rebirth a special ability) - that's 20 damage in 5 turns for 2 :fire. For 1 :fire, I can play an ash eater that does 2 damage each round. That's 10 damage in 5 turns for 1 :fire. Also compare it to lava golem, which is 5/1 and, like this card idea, has an off-element ability. It'll do 25 damage in 5 turns even if you never grow it.Nice logical deduction! You're right, the older version was just a touch underpowered in comparison to other fire cards. I changed the water ability to slightly bolster the combo's power, since now it's a 3 :fire creature which, after 4 turns, deals 6 damage per turn with an upkeep cost of :water each turn (upgraded, a 7 atk creature with the :water upkeep cost for 2 :fire and 5 turns).
This is a 3 or 2 :fire creature that does 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, then 6 (and dies) damage - 19 damage in 5 turns, but if I'm playing a water duo, I can keep it alive by setting its damage back to 2 (so maybe only 13 damage in 4 turns if I plan on resetting it, then repeat the cycle for 4 turns -- that's an average damage of 3.25 a turn). I'd say 3 :fire for 19 damage is on target -except- that this thing dies if you don't keep it going with a water duo, and that the 19 (or only 13) damage is a slow building thing that starts out at 2, versus a consistent 4+ each turn.
The idea's fine. My gut feeling tells me it should have a little more oomph to keep up with its counterparts in the :fire element.
Absolutely weaker. Most growth creatures pay 1 quanta off-element for a suitable growth, and no guaranteed death down the road, but if you want this to stay alive, you have to give up attack. For cost to quanta, this thing may increase attack all on its own, but it's not worth it unless the attack gain is noticeable.So how would the balancing be if the ability gave the card +2|-1 each turn?
Absolutely weaker. Most growth creatures pay 1 quanta off-element for a suitable growth, and no guaranteed death down the road, but if you want this to stay alive, you have to give up attack. For cost to quanta, this thing may increase attack all on its own, but it's not worth it unless the attack gain is noticeable.So how would the balancing be if the ability gave the card +2|-1 each turn?
How about each turn=each attack or every succesful attack? Adrenaline/against Dim. shield :DThematically, I don't see a fire creature as one that would wait to grow until it attacked. Fire doesn't wait for anyone or anything.
I don't like the new version of Cooldown...I'm putting up a pole for it.
Thematically, I don't see a fire creature as one that would wait to grow until it attacked. Fire doesn't wait for anyone or anything.